Under "Jobs": Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Under "Cutting Spending": Repeal and Replace health care.

And so it begins. Will the GOP do the right thing and repeal the health care bill altogether, or will they try to "fix" it by picking it apart, saving some things and changing others? "Repeal and Replace"?? What the heck? Replace with what?

I think I know the answer, and that's why I refuse to donate to the GOP.

Okay, dude. Think this through. Brilliant ObamaCare has created things that exist now. Therefore, you can't simply repeal Brilliant ObamaCare. All of those things (agencies, jobs, forms, and much more) will be left in limbo if you do not replace the law with something else, however minimal.

All of those things (agencies, jobs, forms, and much more) will be left in limbo if you do not replace the law with something else, however minimal.

In limbo? You mean the way America's healthcare is in limbo now? The way I don't know if my policy will still be there next year? The way we don't know how long we'll have good healthcare before the whole system collapses under its own over-regulated weight?

We need to repeal healthcare so we don't spend the trillions, but you think we should leave the agencies/jobs/forms in place because...why was that again?

Agreed that this is too long, but first I'd like to see a pledge from Republican candidates who lose their primaries that they will pack their bags and get the fuck out instead of trying to get back on the ballot.

Of course you know that the MSM/Democrat machine will not let the GOP get away with "replace". They will demand specifics as a steady drumbeat for the next 6 weeks. Also the document does not address entitlement programs or the military budget at all.

First, the detailed health care legislation was too long at something less that three thousand pages. Now, twenty one pages is too long.

What do you want? A single page, with giant font that says "BHO is a commie/dope, But Rs love America and they will protect the constitution"? Such may or may not be good politics, but it's definitely a little light serious detail.

Silly me, I thought that the twenty one page document lacked concrete specifics. I would have appreciated more pages to show that the Rs had a plan to cut actual dollar amounts from specific programs/services. But, I guess that I (after being fooled in the past) don't trust the Rs as much as many of you seem to.

Speaking of utters what do we all think of farm subsidies. I am driving around with my folks and seeing all these huge farms in Dane/Colombia County and all these farmers are receiving thousands of dollars from the federal government.

Some as much as 100k a year.

To look at them they look like they don't have a pot to piss in (my pop's saying) but they are as rich as rich.

Tits.

Hogs.

Rare Clumbers.

Oh, and the rare clumber came out of surgery great. The mass on his anus has been removed and he is shitting perfectly, thanks so much for your concern and all of the well wishes. Nice perfect solid logs are streaming out without any effort or discomfort. You are all great, I mean that. Special hugs.

One of the problems with the Dems is that they are mainly focused on sticking their hands into big bags of government money. The Rino's want to get control of congress, regardless the principles of the candidate, because they want it to be their hands in those money bags. It's all about money and power - oh, and did I say MONEY!!!! Take 5 friends to the voting booth on Election Day -- encourage them in the 'correct' way to vote.

I don't really mind RINOs. A Republican in, say, Delaware has to be liberal in a lot of ways. Just like a Democrat in, say, Arkansas has to be conservative in a lot of ways. That's just how things work in a system where voters decide who holds office.

It's silly to put up hardcore conservatives in leftish states and it's crazy to put up hardcore liberals in rightish states. You can say that you'd rather lose, but having power does matter in an over-arching way because bills are largely conceived in committees, and the committees will have a majority of whichever party has a majority in the chamber.

Christine O'Donnell is gonna lose. Castle would have won, and that would be huge for the Senate infrastructure.

I agree with Seven- it is too long. But, it is several thousand pages shorter than the health care bill, which does nothing to reform health care, the Wall Street reform bill, which does nothing to reform Wall Street- but creates affirmative action- and, and, ah, er, um, eh, hey, who stole my teleprompter!!!

"One thing I liked is requiring a bill to have the constitutional authority attached to it."

None of you other cons are falling for this one, are you?

Who is going to "certify" these bills? Maybe we can get someone who is fair and balanced (Palin?) to hand out advisory opinions or a royal assent.

GMay,

My earnest concern is that this pledge is a load BS. The stupid blather in the supporting twenty one pages is the typical vagueness that allows pols to avoid making concrete promises. They avoid cutting real benefits/services/programs that, inevitably, some constituency wouldn't like (but other constituencies would approve and those folks could later use the specifics to identify broken promises when the pols don't follow through).

It really is a slimy (though not rare) document. They fool the folks who want cuts. And, they also fool the folks who don't want "their" programs cut. They can pander to both diametrically opposed objectives at the same time.

So, yes, it is a pledge. But, it's a pledge that is designed to let politicians avoid accountability. And, it's got stupid gimmicks, like the (sans Supreme Court) constitutional certification. Not my cup of tea.

No one. Congress is going to cite the power the Constitution gives Congress to create the bill to be signed by the president.

What about that do you not understand? What makes you believe that Congress needs some authority to look at the Constitution to find the part giving Congress the power to make a law? Any sentient human being can do this, and probably even you.

edutcher said... Some won't be doable until The Zero is pensioned off in '12, but they can have up or down votes to separate the RINOs and Demos from the Americans.=====================Last I looked, there are a lot of RINOs and Dems that are as good a bunch of Americans as those that believe in Palin or the 6,000 year old Earth or Free Trade "race to the lowest wage globally" & all-wise CEOs.

My Mom was a Carter Democrat. I actually went door to door with her in 1976 because she thought it cheaper than getting a babysitter and saying that Carter was for her 3 children the children! - was a campaign selling point.By 1980, she was a Reagan Democrat, by 1984 she left the Dem Party. She rejoined the Dems in 2006.

In the mid-80s, my 1st summer job was with union workers in a factory. Who were patriotic as anything and had Reagan stickers on their hardhats - in part to really piss off the steward and visiting higher up union drones wholly sold out to the Dem Party. But they also worshipped JFK and thanked god for social security and medicare for their parents and democrat work to keep Republicans from selling the workers out to the Japanese.

except for the 9-0 decisions, every Supreme Court decision that determines a law was unconstitutional does produce a document that says the law was in fact constitutional

Well, no, this isn't true at all, because even in 9-0 decisions there will be a brief on behalf of the government. However, and this is where you shallowness and lack off understanding really shows, that document is not produced by Congress. That document is produced by the Solicitor General, who belongs in the executive branch.

Unless you have some other document in mind. I don't have any idea what it could be.

So, I'm not impressed by pols inventing constitutional justifications for their laws

But you are impressed, presumably by judges inventing constitutional justifications for the laws of pols. Tell us, 1jpb: by what magical process does a Supreme Court judge become imbued with the special ability to adduce constitutional justification? Is it when the president selects the judge? Is it during Senate confirmation? Is it during law school (because I went to law school)? Is it a special blend of herbs and spices found in the Marburymandamus?

Yes, 1jpb, please humor us and tell us the peculiar way by which Supreme Court judges can determine constitutionality but members of Congress cannot.

Dear Uneducated Dumb Ass: Please, oh please, 1jpb, point us to any part of the Constitution that says that the judges on the Supreme Court determine constitutionality. Tell us also where the Constitution says that Supreme Court judges do this but members of Congress do not.

I agree completely regarding putting up candidates with better chances of winning for the benefit of infrastructure. I leaned toward the pragmatist side myself regarding the DE Republican primary. I may not like RINOs too much, but I'm not big on automatic purges of them either. (The RINO discussion is one for another day.)

But that wasn't my point. My point is that once the voters of your party vote you out, it's time to let go instead of trying to play spoiler to the party you allegedly supported. These clowns want voter support, but don't want to support the voters' coice in the end.

You're welcome. I'm happy to teach you that the constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine the constitutionality of "Laws of the United States."

Now, where in the Constitution does it say that the Congress has the power to determine the constitutionality of the Laws of the United States? And, why haven't past Congresses been using this power to determine the constitutionality of their laws, instead of leaving this task to the judiciary?

Dude, you simply are out of your depth here and you have no idea what you are talking about. It was a Supreme Court judge who said that the Supreme Court has the authority to say "what the law is," in dicta in a case.

There is no basis for the Supreme Court reviewing Congress in the Constitution itself. This is Constitution 101, dude. It's real simple. It's real clear.

You are embarrassing yourself.

I am glad that I was able to get you to look at the Constitution itself, though. First time?

I've provided you the a two piece argument that together directly connect the Supreme court's ability to strike down laws to the literal text of the constitution. And, it sounds like you've never been able to make these connections on your own.

1)"The judicial Power shall extend to...the Laws of the United States..."

2) the Supremacy Clause

In response you've only managed to fool yourself into believing that I didn't notice that you ignored my request for you to back up your love of the R Congressional certification thing. Can you use the Constitution to show how Congress has the power to establish the constitutionality of their laws, sans the Supreme Court? Which, was the original point of this jabberfest.

P.S.

I almost didn't want to mention it, because you seem so excited w/ your misconception, but, at the risk of bursting a bubble--you didn't introduce me to the constitution.

So, we have: The judicial Power shall extend to,...the Laws of the United States

That doesn't tell us what authority the courts have over the laws.

The way you read it, the Supreme Court could decide tomorrow that federal tax law calls for all black people to be shot on sight, and the executive branch would have no choice but to shrug and start shooting. Sure, their reading is ridiculous and at odds with both the text of the law and the text of the Constitution, but they get the final say... right?

Wrong. They get the final say within the context of judicial proceedings. Judicial proceedings themselves are constrained by precedent and by the Constitution. If the court violates either the rest of the government not only may, but *must* ignore them.

An electable RINO just kicks the can down the road, and keeps playing the same old game, in which Dems and the GOP alternate in seeing who can kill the golden goose the fastest.

I don't think most Americans have figured out how far down the road of socialism we've gone, and this take two steps back approach is just another delay tactic.

Unelectable? Probably.But if unelected, the country spins ever downward.

Not much different than getting a junkie to stop. They either quit using or they die. Americans have become handout and control junkies. It looks like they want the free shit to keep coming, and they love telling people what to do with every aspect of their lives.

You can't cure that sort of idée fixe. The fact that an unrepentant Marxist is likely to win in Delaware is proof enough that Americans have lost the will to be Americans.

And they will get their wish, good and hard.

A 60 year old guy from the Twin Cities told me yesterday his new factory is going to locate in China, because it's too expensive (by regulations and taxes) to keep it in Minnesota.

I am talking to my kids to be prepared to leave this country, because we may have to. Yes, I think it's that bad, and no, I don't think our governments can stop their drunken ways.

Jobs:- Stop job-killing tax hikes- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Dahlia Lithwick made the same mistake 1jpb did; which is really embarrassing for her, since she's supposed to be a legal expert and all that.

1jpb, every member of Congress swears an oath to defend the Constitution, as does the President. It's an abrogation of that oath to vote to pass a law, or sign one, that they believe is unconstitutional.

An electable RINO just kicks the can down the road, and keeps playing the same old game, in which Dems and the GOP alternate in seeing who can kill the golden goose the fastest.

I think an argument can be made for voting for an electable RINO in the case we just saw in 2008. Full control of the government by the Dems allowed the very destructive, and probably permanent, health care bill to be passed. In 2010, however, it seems pretty sure (knock on wood) that the House will change hands. Given that, I think it's important to "explain" to the Republicans that if they're not fiscally responsible, then they are on the other side and will not receive support from conservatives.

Seven Machos,The budget has not been balanced in a very long time. Clinton definitely did NOT do it. Look up the national debt and find out for yourself that every year under Clinton the debt went UP. He balanced the items that were in the Budget but he did NOT balance the total budget. Remember, Congress has taken some items out of the Budget so they don't look quite as bad on deficit as they really are. Educate yourself on how venal and criminal Congress really is. Especially, don't embarrass yourself further by thinking that Congress is capable of balancing a budget. You have bought into a HUGE lie!

I agree, Pogo. This looks like a mid-term, PR piece that identifies what the GOP should already be doing - and short on specifics of any meaningful long term sound public policy. Lots of rhetoric. Yawn. Where’s the leadership?

Pogo - Don't get me wrong; I have NO faith in the Republicans as a party. It's why I am happy to see Tea Party candidates defeat establishment RINOs. Whether it will be enough to change things, I am pretty pessimistic, but it's the only game in town right now.

Count me in with Jack Wayne and Kathy--a PR piece. Its not better than Mr Obama's campaign promises and only an effort in attempting to regain power to screw over americans except as republicans rather than democrats.

Michele Bachmann and others are talking of a Tea Party cacus in the House. They need to do that, and they need to take these "commitments", turn them into bills, and force votes in Congress on these issues.

That's the sad truth, man. It's like we're choosing our airline pilot based on which one is less drunk than the other.

Hey, I bought that Northwest pilots defense (to a degree). IF I had to choose between two drunk pilots, one a novice and the other an alcoholic who's done it many times before, I'd choose the alcoholic.

Michele Bachmann and others are talking of a Tea Party cacus in the House. They need to do that, and they need to take these "commitments", turn them into bills, and force votes in Congress on these issues.

Well what is needed is a viable third party that will keep the tax and spend Democrats and the tax and borrow Republicans in check.

I don't really care one way or the other about social cause issues. Just quit spending the country into oblivian.

Well what is needed is a viable third party that will keep the tax and spend Democrats and the tax and borrow Republicans in check.

Third parties are so difficult. I think a more promising strategy is taking over the Republicans from within, which seems to be what the Tea Party people are trying. It's why I am really pleased to see them defeating the establishment Republicans in primaries.

It's a long, long road, however. I don't give it a high chance of success. But like I said, it's the only game in town.

Remember a fair number of these aren't the "Same Republican Party" that spent so much in 01-06. A lot of them lost their job in the Dem takeover of 07. There's a pretty big Freshman class coming in that has the Tea Party to thank. It's fair to be suspicious of the Party leadership though.

It's like trying to find a good radio station right when you're being attacked by zombies. Makes no difference whether you're listening to Lynyrd or the Village People when the undead are breaking down the door.

The Lithwick piece that Salamandyr is referring to is here. It has to be read to be believed. Though I don't think even her missing the point about the Congressional oath is as embarrassing as misattributing to Sarah Palin the Declaration of Independence's assertion about the God-given nature of rights. You'd think that word "unalienable" would have been a hint.

I think a case can be made for sitting back and watching your opponent lemming into the sea. On the other hand, given the severity of the problems we face, I think it falls on the potential new boss to show what he wants to do in order to fix what's either gotten screwed up or, if you must blame Bush, wasn't fixed well enough or not at all.

To all of the social conservatives out there, please cool your heels. You had a couple of decades to ramp up and have the run of the place while the federal government grew and grew and grew. Give the fiscal conservatives an honest shot at it. Frankly, I'd say that goes for the pinkest liberals among you as well.

This would be a huge mistake. As long as this issue remains on the table the left will take it up as soon as they return to power. If Reps have a chance and don't enact anyhting in its place they give ammunition to those who will re-enact Obamacare or worse push for single payer.

If Reps were smart (they're not, but what's the point of commenting if you don't recommend an action?) they'd promise to have hearings with a wide variety of experts across the spectrum before deciding what changes (if any) to implement. Beyond that they should promise only that their preference is to enact incremental rather than radical change, and that they promise every stakeholder will have input. Obviously they should live up to these promises.

The first policy they should specifically consider is ending employer participation in healthcare. This eliminates many inefficiencies and allows the insurance industry to design products for the healthcare recipient rather than for businesses. It moves healthcare away from government and prevents the creation of another government constituency.

Full control of the government by the Dems allowed the very destructive, and probably permanent, health care bill to be passed.

Ah yes that mild health insurance reform package that covers kids and eliminates pre-existing conditions , rescission and reduces the deficit by billions. Coincidentally Repubs chose the same day these measures take effect to roll out their new contract.

Yawn.... A party regurgitating old material, pretending that it's new.

And what's with the term pledge? Feels squishy. Too much like a promise, which are made to be broken. Couldn't they have found a more solid term to use? At least a contract seems like it has some weight to it... unless you're dealing with sports.

Well, someone on this thread still has unquestioning faith in politicians and big government.

Well its the same guy from unreality based community that thinks the government presses a button and money magically springs forth. The entire liberal mindset is based upon the State being the answer to all. Some people put their faith in God, the luck of the dice or kharma. For garage its The Federal Government.

I didn't believe it when they were spouting it. I don't believe it now because they don't appear to believe it themselves or they would be running on it. I also don't believe bogus CBO numbers (garbage in-garbage out comes to mind). Further, I believe most of the bill was built on bullshit to begin with, so, no...I don't believe it.

Hell, garage, the head of the CBO felt compelled to explain that the official CBO scoring of the document was not realistic.

I'm on the Director's Blog right now. What are you talking about?

Well, someone on this thread still has unquestioning faith in politicians and big government. Quaint!

But I bet you trust the gov's numbers when it comes to the deficit and debt held right? Republicans trust the CBO when it agrees with them, and don't trust it when it disagrees with them. If you were truly worried about spending and the deficit they would have taken a serious look at the health care costs and debated it honestly. But of course conservatives aren't really interested in spending and deficits and being honest.

Guys, for liberals like garage, this is a faith based belief. So it is written, so shall it be done.

Beleiving you can add 40 million additional people to the health care rolls AND reduce health care costs AND reduce the federal deficit is the equivalent of fundamentalists believing the earth is 6000 years old.

I thought garage was smart too until he tried to educate me on monetary policy. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was just intoxicated. I mean its always happy hour somewhere.

But I bet you trust the gov's numbers when it comes to the deficit and debt held right?

Nope. I believe it's much worse. What I do believe is that this Democratic-led Congress is giving the Fed a pass on transparency and direct congressional (ie we the people) oversight. Why do you suppose they would do that, Garage?

Hoosier said: "I thought garage was smart too until he tried to educate me on monetary policy. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was just intoxicated."

You're a tolerant man. I never did think much of the old boy before he waded into that monetary policy tangent the other day. Now I realize he truly is an idiot. You can explain stuff in detail to him and he'll still cling to his ignorance out of spite or something.

"Hardly. We want fiscal sanity. We are skeptical and sick of republican politicians, who--you nailed it-- are dishonest about spending and deficits."

But knox, that's just way so far out there on the extreme right wing doncha know? It's just absolutely nutty I tell ya! All those extremists out there on the right wing tip screaming about fiscal sanity. It makes me shudder to even think of those kooks.

Why even bother working from CBO numbers? They are forced to compute their results from a set of assumptions given to the by politicians pushing an agenda. Not the best place to start if you're looking to model reality.

Be serious. The CBO "scores" bills under a specific set of rules defined by congress. Dems gamed these rules allowing them to show positive budgetary contribution for the ten year analysis period even though we know the plan costs more than it raises. These gimmicks include but are not limited to :

- Showing ten years of taxes but not ten full years of costs.- Assuming medical payments can be drastically cut without repercussion.- Assuming the tax increases have no negative effect on the tax base.

I'm presuming you know this and are merely hoping some of those reading your comment are ignorant of this reality. But if you're not aware of these simple facts you should educate yourself.

The thing about CBO estimates is that they are now completely gamed by the congress in the way the majority wants. They can force the CBO numbers through the way the law is written.

Regardless of the estimate, a wise reader will always expect the actual result to be worse in the direction opposite of what the majority would like the public to believe, and not in a small way. History has shown this to always be the case, but I'm sure it will be different this time.

As with everything in the American political realm, I tried to enter the health care debate open-minded and looking to see if the Democrats could actually get something workable done.

When it became apparent that a group of chronologically adult people were pushing this fantasy on the rest of us and expecting us to take them seriously, I became skeptical of everything else. For good reason, as it turns out.

Answer this, Garage. If it's such a panacea, why aren't they running on their record?

Despite being a life long Democrat, I never vote for them anymore. I would vote for any Dem who promised to cut more than his Repub. opponent. Then of course I would have to hunt him down when he does the opposite.

In its August 2010 report on the budget outlook, CBO extrapolated the estimated effects of the legislation to cover fiscal year 2020. On balance,the two laws’ health care and revenue provisions are estimated to reduce the projected deficit in 2020 by $28 billion, and the education provisions of the Reconciliation Act are estimated to reduce the projected deficit in 2020by $2 billion

Cool we're spending almost a trillion bucks to save $30 billion in ten years.

Defense spending became untouchable when defense contractors realized that they didn't have to build everything in one place. Now they have 300 different parts of a fighter jet built in 300 different congressional districts.

"Defense spending became untouchable when defense contractors realized that they didn't have to build everything in one place. Now they have 300 different parts of a fighter jet built in 300 different congressional districts."

You have bassackwards understanding of the problem. Defense contractors have to spread out the contracts all over the country in order to win broad congressional support to build any large system. They would actually love to centralize the process as much as possible but it's politically impossible. In congress, it's always 'What's in this for my district?' Not, 'what's best for defense?'

Skimmed the "Pledge". 1st take was it is too long. 2nd is it takes no shot at any major Entitlement that drives 70% of Fed Gov't spending. 3rd is it goes tax-cut happy in a time of off-the charts deficit spending. (Showing its Drafters are NOT aligned with the Tea Party folks)

Then my biggest peeve is over the "Pledge" that they will look at all expenses and all programs EXCEPT those that are Security-related.Why not those? The Washington Post and others have identified vast, bloated DOD and "counterterror heroes" Empires created that started staffing and expensing exponentially more in an era of blank Dubya checks handed them.

That is sort of like Democrats "pledging" to belt-tighten in all Fed spending areas EXCEPT those that affect poor people, minorities, heroic schoolteachers and government union employees.

Things I liked? Even though it failed to talk entitlements?

1. No Federal mandate that costs more than 100 million (the economically significant on citizens threshold) can be forced on people without a Congressional Vote. Presumably, that will also be applied to activist judge decrees that then fall on the Executive to tax and regulate the citizens on that cost more than 100 million. (say bye-bye, Delta baitfish).

2. No vote on bills without 3 days to read it.

3. Each Federal bill analyzed to check if it Constitutionally usurps power and money from the states and The People.

At the federal level, there is no power of judicial review explicitly established in the United States Constitution, but the doctrine has been inferred from the structure of that document. At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, five of the thirteen States included some form of judicial review or judicial veto in their state constitutions. Delegates at the Convention, including South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, spoke out against the doctrine of judicial review....

Since the argument of Marbury v. Madison before it in 1803, the Supreme Court has ruled that it has a power of judicial review. This power does not mean, however, that the judiciary is the only branch of government that decides the meaning of the Constitution. Article VI requires federal and state officeholders to be bound "by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

And Article III also gives Congress the power to restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction except for cases involving

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party...

Judicial review makes sense, but it was not in the Constitution as written and people like Thomas Jefferson had reservations about it:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Seven Machos is right on this one, and you are wrong. Guess you didn't pay much attention in high school social studies (where I learned this).